The conference is 24-29 August. Hawking presented his idea Tuesday, based on joint work with Malcolm Perry (Cambridge) and Andy Strominger (Harvard). Perry also spoke today. According to the posted schedule for Tuesday, his talk was followed by talks by Carlo Rovelli and Francesca Vidotto.

I watched the video, but it is very brief. Can we see some of the details? He says that for the horizon of a stationary black hole one can define supertranslations in a similar way as for scri plus of an asymptotically flat space-time and they store the information of incoming particles. But how does it work, and what about evaporating black holes?

I watched the video, but it is very brief. Can we see some of the details? He says that for the horizon of a stationary black hole one can define supertranslations in a similar way as for scri plus of an asymptotically flat space-time and they store the information of incoming particles. But how does it work, and what about evaporating black holes?

We're told to expect a paper (from Hawking, Perry, Strominger) in September. I think what came out in Tuesday's talks by Hawking and, later, Perry was more of a teaser. Looking at Bee's blog for Tuesday I get the impression that she was left with a lot of questions. She made a brief reference to Perry's talk and said it cleared up some points.

I'd be more interested in hearing about some of the other talks at the conference. I'll post the program to give an idea, from the talk titles, of some of the other ways the BH enigma is being addressed. I don't think Hawking has a monopoly on interesting lines of investigation. Indeed it might be prudent to take the "supertranslations" gambit with a grain of salt.

't Hooft is at the conference and gave a talk Monday. What might he be saying about BH? Here's the most recent 't Hooft BH paper I could find:http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3426Quantum gravity without space-time singularities or horizonsGerard 't Hooft
(Submitted on 18 Sep 2009)
In an attempt to re-establish space-time as an essential frame for formulating quantum gravity - rather than an "emergent" one -, we find that exact invariance under scale transformations is an essential new ingredient for such a theory. Use is made of the principle of "black hole complementarity", the notion that observers entering a black hole describe its dynamics in a way that appears to be fundamentally different from the description by an outside observer. These differences can be boiled down to conformal transformations. If we add these to our set of symmetry transformations, black holes, space-time singularities, and horizons disappear, while causality and locality may survive as important principles for quantum gravity.
10 pages, 3 figures. Presented at the Erice Summerschool of Subnuclear Physics 2009

The title of his 2015 Stockholm talk "Backreaction and Conformal Symmetry" seems remarkably in line with this 2009 Erice paper! He may not have changed focus very much over the past 6 years, in his thinking about BH. I wish we had access to 't Hooft's talk.

The conference is 24-29 August. Hawking presented his idea Tuesday, based on joint work with Malcolm Perry (Cambridge) and Andy Strominger (Harvard). Perry also spoke today. According to the posted schedule for Tuesday, his talk was followed by talks by Carlo Rovelli and Francesca Vidotto.

The conference will include a range of different ideas for resolving the BH information paradox.

How do they plan to resolve the BH information paradox, is there any empirical experiment which is planned to resolve this paradox?

At least for the time being (in its present incomplete form) Hawking et al's proposal seems to have bombed. Bee writes:http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/08/embrace-your-5th-dimension.html
==quote==
... Essentially he is claiming that our universe has holographic properties even though it has a positive cosmological constant, and that the horizon of a black hole also serves as a surface that contains all the information of what happens in the full space-time. This would mean in particular that the horizon of a black hole keeps track of what fell into the black hole, and so nothing is really forever lost.

This by itself isn’t a new idea. What is new in this work with Malcom Perry and Andrew Strominger is that they claim to have a way to store and release the information, in a dynamical situation. Details of how this is supposed to work however are so far not clear. By and large the scientific community has reacted with much skepticism, not to mention annoyance over the announcement of an immature idea.
==endquote==

Why does she say that!? Presumably from discussions at the conference, but from the announcement it seems to me that they do not say that the event horizon contains all the information in the full space-time, but just the information for the matter that falls in.

It's unfortunate that no information is coming out about the other talks given at the conference. There were over a dozen other speakers on the program (including 't Hooft and several others well worth listening to) presenting other approaches to BH issues.
The organizers are missing an opportunity by not putting video online of talks like these and the ensuing discussion by the other participants:
"Backreaction and Conformal Symmetry" G. 't Hooft
"Puzzle Pieces: Do any fit?" Ch. Misner
"The Generalised Second Law and the unity of physics" F. Dowker

Why does she say that!? Presumably from discussions at the conference, but from the announcement it seems to me that they do not say that the event horizon contains all the information in the full space-time, but just the information for the matter that falls in.

Contains the information, as you say, and contains it classically, in the metric,which is somewhat surprising. IOW a BH has an enormous amount of hair, even at the classical level.

The only clear thing is that none [of the audience] understood anything. Is this a new way of communicating scientific results? As a sybilline facebook status? Suspense, photographs, vague announcements? Why didn't they wait to submit the paper without any sensationalistic preview?

I can assure you that pretty much every one in the community thinks the same. Look, you shouldn't take Hawking as being representative for contemporary research. He is an extreme statistical outlier on all accounts. I have no idea why he wanted to announce his conclusion here and now. Maybe it was just because it was a good occasion and the timing seemed right, or because he likes Stockholm. It's certainly not something people commonly do. The standard procedure is, do the work, publish the paper, give the talks, and that's what the vast majority of physicists do. Every once in a while of course the timing goes wrong and somebody gives a talk about an almost-done work, or a yet-to-appear paper, and so on. Maybe it's a case like this, maybe the paper was supposed to appear earlier, but I don't know really. Best,

By and large the scientific community has reacted with much skepticism, not to mention annoyance over the announcement of an immature idea.

I think for Stephen Hawking is a different thing. He looked so fragile on his presentation. He was manipulating his computer with a move detector attached to his glasses, which read tiny movements of the right of his lips and eyebrows.

I think he was trying to take to make the best of his time to at least share his ideas (this one specifically was only 1 month old at the day of the presentation).

Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski
is listed as 22 years old in a July 2015 article about her. But earlier this year when she was written up, she was 21.
I understand she is a first generation Cuban-American raised in Chicago. Her parents would have emigrated from Cuba.
Chicago has a regional school for the gifted, she went to MIT for undergrad and IIRC graduated at the top of her class, or something amazing like that. She has done a lot of remarkable things like build and fly her own experimental aircraft. So as a 21 year old she was in the PhD program at Harvard, collaborating with Strominger and others on papers like this:http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.07644Higher-Dimensional Supertranslations and Weinberg's Soft Graviton TheoremDaniel Kapec, Vyacheslav Lysov, Sabrina Pasterski, Andrew Strominger
(Submitted on 26 Feb 2015)
Asymptotic symmetries of theories with gravity in d=2m+2 spacetime dimensions are reconsidered for m>1 in light of recent results concerning d=4 BMS symmetries. Weinberg's soft graviton theorem in 2m+2 dimensions is re-expressed as a Ward identity for the gravitational S-matrix. The corresponding asymptotic symmetries are identified with 2m+2-dimensional supertranslations. An alternate derivation of these asymptotic symmetries as diffeomorphisms which preserve finite-energy boundary conditions at null infinity and act non-trivially on physical data is given. Our results differ from those of previous analyses whose stronger boundary conditions precluded supertranslations for d>4. We find for all even d that supertranslation symmetry is spontaneously broken in the conventional vacuum and identify soft gravitons as the corresponding Goldstone bosons.
24 pages

She also collaborated with Strominger and friends on some less explicitly related papers in 2014.